terminal_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail that it reports lifecycle, real exit code/signal, termination reason, and output availability, but it does not clarify edge cases such as unknown or expired session ids, nor does it add much beyond the output schema's likely contents.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the most important status aspects are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes directly to describing what the query returns.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only status tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to call it. Gaps remain around the required session_id and the distinction from terminal_read, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the sole required parameter, session_id. The parameter name is fairly intuitive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema semantics by explaining what session_id refers to or how it should be obtained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Query', and names concrete status aspects: lifecycle, real exit code/signal, termination reason, and output availability. This clearly identifies the tool as a terminal-session status query, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as terminal_read or terminal_terminate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the mention of lifecycle and output availability, suggesting it should be used to check terminal state before reading or acting. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to terminal_read, which is the most likely alternative when an agent wants actual output.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.